"Alfonso" wrote in message
...
| On 25/03/11 12:56, Androcles wrote:
|
| wrote in message
| ...
| | On 24/03/11 22:34, PD wrote:
| | On Mar 24, 4:40 pm, wrote:
| | On 24/03/11 13:47, PD wrote:
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | On Mar 24, 7:40 am, wrote:
| | On 23/03/11 13:50, PD wrote:
| |
| | On Mar 23, 5:39 am, wrote:
| | On 22/03/11 18:21, PD wrote:
| | I think Einstein confused himself thinking that clocks
measure
| | time.
| |
| | Yes, indeed. Time is what clocks measure.
| |
| | You cannot have your cake and eat it either time is the
reciprocal
| | of frequency or it is what a clock measures.
| |
| | Time is not the reciprocal of frequency. Time is benchmarked by
a
| | locally stationary reproducible process. See the NIST standards.
| |
| | You are ducking the issue:
| |
| | a/The frequency of a transverse moving clock is reduced.
| |
| | Yes.
| |
| | Why do you accept this statement yet query the one below?
| | Clearly in the context it is moving relative to you and you are
| | measuring it in your FoR
| |
| |
| | b/The time interval between ticks is increased (dilated means
| increased)
| |
| | The time interval as measured by a clock at *rest* in this frame
is
| | increased between the ticks of the clock that is moving in this
frame,
| | yes.
| |
| | I am clearly talking about the same clock as in a/
| |
| | Then the statement makes no sense. The time interval between ticks
on
| | the clock moving are *unchanged* in the frame in which that clock is
| | at rest.
| |
| | So is the frequency "*unchanged* in the frame in which that clock is
at
| | rest". You understood the first statement. The second statement
relates
| | to the same scenario. Are you deliberately being bloody minded
| |
| | See the comment below about the absence of ethereal, standalone
time.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | c/ What the moving clock registers is reduced.
| |
| | Reduced, relative to a clock at rest in this frame, yes.
| |
| | Note that there is no ethereal, detached Time that is affected.
What
| | you are *always* doing is comparing the time measured on one clock
| | between two events with the time measured on another clock between
the
| | same two events.
| |
| | I never said otherwise
| |
| |
| | Ignoring Doppler shift (How in practice I don't know but never
mind)
| You
| | have a moving clock transmitting ticks and locally you have two
clocks
| | one a normal clock counting locally generated ticks and a second
| | counting transmitted ticks.
| |
| | You can measure how long the transmitted tick interval is. This is
| | "measuring the time between two events" as you describe it - the
| arrival
| | of one tick and the next. It is this "tick interval" (units
seconds)
| | which dilates.
| |
| | What is registered on the clock counting the received ticks is a
"tick
| | count".
| |
| | What time is, is what a clock locally at rest measures.
| |
| | In note you say "measures" not "indicates".
| |
| | " We may say of it the following three things:
| | Set I
| | (a) The journey occurred in time.
| | (b) The time of starting was 1 o'clock.
| | (c) The time occupied by the journey was 2 hours.
| |
| | The same word, time, is used here in three quite different senses, as
| | may be seen by considering the corresponding statements about space:
| | Set II
| | (a) The journey occurred in space.
| | (b) The place of starting was London.
| | (c) The length of (or distance covered by) the journey was 60 miles.
| |
| | Here we use three different words — space, place, length (or
distance),
| | none of that could be substituted for either of the others without
| | depriving the sentence of meaning. The same distinctions, thus brought
| | to light, exist in the set I, but they are obscured by the use
| | of the same word, 'time', for three quite different ideas.
| |
| | To distinguish the three meanings of 'time' I will re-express the set
I
| | in the following not unnatural ways:
| | Set III
| | (a) The journey occurred in eternity.
| | (b) The instant of starting was 1 o'clock.
| | (c) The duration of the journey was 2 hours." Dingle
| |
| | Note that only (c) has units of seconds. I think that part of the
| | problem is that we are all familiar with clocks# and think of them as
| | something which tells time in hours minutes and seconds. In
scientific
| | terms we should perhaps not use the term clock but "duration meter" -
| | envisaging something with a digital reading which increments at some
| | interval 1/10^n seconds. The larger n then the better the resolution -
| | which is started by one detected event and stopped by another event.
| | Your statement:
| | "What time is, is what a clock locally at rest measures".
| | Becomes
| | What time is, is what a "duration meter" locally at rest measures.
| | In terms of my scenario the only interval which the duration meter can
| | measure is the interval between the ticks - the reciprocal of which is
| | the frequency of the ticks.
| |
| | #If one is pedantic the strict definition of a "clock" is something
| | which chimes. If it doesn't chime the correct terminology is a
| "time-piece".
|
| The English "Clock" is derived from the German "Glocke" for "bell".
| plural Glocken = bells. Glockenspiel = play bells.
| Church towers had bells, then mechanical devices were added to ring
| them once an hour.
|
| Originally to call the monks to prayer. Originally with no dial.
|
Originally to call everyone to prayer, and still done today in Islam.

| Initially clocks only had an hour pointer,
| the minute
| hand was added later. The correct term is "chronometer."
|
| Historically you may be correct but today the term "chronometer" is used
| for a device with sufficient accuracy to be used for navigation.

Historically you may be correct but today the term for a device with
sufficient accuracy to be used for navigation is "phone" or "cell phone"
or "mobile phone". It displays a chart which today is called a "map"
and utters "Enter roundabout","Take the second exit", "Recalculating";
"Make a U-turn", "Recalculating", to the annoyance of the bus driver
who knows where he's going when I tested my new toy. "Would you
mind turning that off, please, it is distracting".-- Bus driver.



| Certainly in the antiques trade "timepiece" is used to describe a more
| ordinary device which tells the time but doesn't chime.

Oh really? I've never been a knockoff imitation Rolex pedlar. Today
a timepiece is called a... err... phone. Yeah, that's it. Phone. Chimes
are called "ringtones".

Back to the issue -
t = 1/f where t is the period and f is the frequency.
tg = g/f

(unless one is a relativist incapable of understanding algebra, in which
case
tg = 1/fg where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Your student is insane, one cannot teach simple math to deranged imbeciles.
One should not mock the afflicted unless they ask for it, and Phuckwit
Duck certainly asks for it.

"A pulse is not DC electricity. Idiot. Bloody-faced idiot. Self-flagellating
bloody-faced idiot" -- Phuckwit Duck.
c = 1 and unitless in natural units." -- Phuckwit Duck
"(x1-x2)^2 + (y1-y2)^2 + (z1-z2)^2 - (t1-t2)^2 is invariant" -- Mallard.
"It turns out that you can verify curvature of a space without
ever stepping away from the space to see it embedded in a
higher dimension." - Mallard.
"Requests for *proof* will be routinely ignored in science because
theories are not proven in science."-- Mallard.
"I'm pretty sure you believe only what you want to believe." -- Phuckwit
Duck.
"You can't even keep track of the lies you say." -- Mallard
[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to appear] --
Blind Phuckwit Duck